In 2003 I promised that a child born that year would have a hydrogen car as his or her first car. I’m sorry — it’s just not clear that hydrogen fuel, fueling stations and cars will be ready by that date. Or ever, for that matter.

In 2004 I spent more time talking about the problems of steroids in baseball players than about energy. But between January 2002 and today, Americans have paid nearly a trillion dollars more for energy — oil, gasoline and natural gas — than during the previous five years. Obviously, if I’d stopped to think about the implications of this in 2004, I would have realized that these increasing energy prices were outstripping my tax cuts, and that they’re symptoms of what’s been called an “energy straightjacket”: in which our delivery infrastructure is stressed, world supplies are tight, and we’re vulnerable to political and weather events over which we have no control.

In 2006 I promised to make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil “a thing of the past” by 2025. Unfortunately the latest projections show that by 2030 we will actually import 40 percent more of our oil from that region. I then said that “Americans are addicted to oil,” which suggested that we need to give up petroleum cold turkey. Obviously impossible. Better, I suggested, to simply wait for labs to make the equivalent of methadone for oil — cellulosic ethanol — which I said would be a practical and competitive fuel within six years, because we are on the “threshold of incredible advances.”
In short, I made a series of promises that wasted valuable time and money, while our uncontrolled energy demand chewed away at the underpinnings of our prosperity, jeopardized the security of our environment, and limited our foreign policy and strategic vision. At the same time, I suggested that the American people should remain passive, waiting for answers from science, from the energy industry or from the government.

Now I’ve had an awakening, and I’ve decided to announce a very different energy policy. This one contains no promises, no wild breakthroughs and no passivity. Now all I have is a plan.

Starting tomorrow, we’re going to cut back on the oil we use, stimulating our economy to become more energy-efficient, and we’re going to phase in alternative fuels in a way that lets the market decide which ones are best. Of course, we’ll invest in research — billions, in fact, far more than the $29 million I proposed last year to investigate cellulosic ethanol.

On conservation:

The 2005 Energy Bill contained a $450 million fund for public education, but the money has never been spent. We’ll use it to pay for a campaign to teach American drivers to save fuel by changing the way they drive. Driving 55 and changing our habits could save more than 7 billion gallons of gasoline a year. The next thing we’ll do is change the timing on 330,000 traffic signals, which could save as much as 17 billion gallons. Then we’ll help the nation’s long-haul truckers install aerodynamic kits on their trucks to save another billion or more. If we get to the point where we’re saving just 3 percent of what we now spend on gasoline, we’re likely to see the price of gas, as well as the worldwide price of oil, fall. And that will give every household, as well as our foreign policy leaders, a bit of breathing room.

On efficiency:

For the past 30 years, efficiency has been America’s largest and cheapest new energy resource; since 1970, increasing efficiency has met three-quarters of our new energy needs. But we can do much more, and we must do more to reduce greenhouse gases and stay competitive with China and Europe. So we’re going to start an initiative to make every aspect of the American economy better at turning energy into gross domestic product.

We’ll set tough standards for motor vehicles and utilities — our two biggest energy users — so that they reduce total energy demand while delivering more services. We’ll also add a market mechanism so that corporations, cities and other organizations can buy and sell efficiency credits, so-called “white certificates” — something Europe and several American states are already doing. In the meantime, we’ll fix policies that discourage efficiency. (Now, for example, we allow landlords to write off their cost of energy yearly, but we require that they write off investments in energy efficiency over a 30-year period.) We believe this combination of tough standards and an efficiency trading system will speed up the commercialization of cutting-edge technology and, at the same time, improve the lives of people around the world. If you want proof, look at how three decades of refrigerator standards have made for better, cheaper fridges that use 70 percent less energy. With the right policies, we can reduce energy demand by more than 15 percent over the next 10 years, while making our economy more productive and more resilient.

On alternative fuels and vehicles:

In the past I’ve overestimated the potential of alternative fuels. We need to scale back our expectations, so that we develop the smartest fuels, not the most politically convenient ones. For starters, we’re going to stop subsidizing alternative fuels. At the same time, we will put a small tax on fuels that pollute, and as time goes on, we’ll increase that tax. Then we’ll copy a model for renewable energy that’s already working in 20 states. It requires that utility companies meet a “renewable portfolio standard” by making sure that a percentage of their electricity comes from renewable sources like solar, wind and biomass.

We’ll extend that to all states, and we’ll start a similar scheme requiring that a small percentage of renewable fuels be mixed in with gasoline and diesel. We won’t dictate what that fuel is, or how it’s made — that’s a decision best left to the market. Investors will build renewable fuel plants because they’ll know there’s a market, and fuel dealers will buy the best mixture of quality and price. The government’s role here isn’t to pick winners, but to foster research and collaboration between the public and private sectors. Already, the Environmental Protection Agency, Eaton Corporation and U.P.S., among others, are cooperating on the production of a new kind of hydraulic hybrid delivery truck. When it’s ready, it’ll have 70-percent better fuel economy and 40-percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and it will pay for itself in just three years.

As we start to experiment with new fuels and vehicles, we must remember that innovation takes time. Even petroleum didn’t fully catch on for the first 50 years of its use. Expecting ethanol in five years or hydrogen in 10 is a foolish and expensive mistake.

A brilliant national energy policy statement. To enact this you should be President. Bush would have problems with some of your big words, and Cheney would get sick to the stomach if he read this; so, there is not chance that this administration would adopt even a faint shadow of some of your ideas. But they are good ideas, and the Democratic majority is probably reading them. Some of them might turn up in some legislation.

After the oil crisis of 1973, Japan (the world’s second-largest economy and a country entirely dependent on imported oil) decided to become more energy independent.

Today, Japan uses 16% less oil than it did in 1973 — while American dependence has increased by more than 60%.

The future of energy-efficient industry, vehicles and appliances is not coming from America — but from Japan. (A ton of Japanese steel takes about 20% less energy to produce than a ton American steel; Japan’s new computer printers are 68% more energy-efficient more than those of, for example, H-P. And on and on and on.)

So while America continues to be dependent on (mostly unreliable) oil-producing states, it also continues to fall behind on the technology that the world’s consumers (including those in America) are and will be buying.

Why is it that America will not learn from other countries on critical subjects like energy and health care and instead flails away on outdated ideas that owe more to ideology than to reason, intelligence or likelihood of producing the desired result?

I love your clear eyed thinking. I would like to wonder whether any American think we could not thrive were it that we started importing 30 or 40 per cent less oil. First, the price of imported oil would drop substantially even as the retail price of gasoline went through the roof, at least initially. Public demand for real basic science energy research would increase.

Personally I’m still made at Jimmy Carter for not doing whatever was necessary to keep Ronald Regan for being elected. Surely we Democrats had a Karl Rove out there somewhere back then.

Great ideas.
How about actually using much less by adjusting lifestyles to match the long term reality – Americans use far more of everything than is sustainable. This would take a major attitude change. To live with the ‘less is more’ attitude would actually enrich peoples lives in the ways that matter.
Less luxury, more meaningful lives is a real choice if leaders model it and inspire folks to follow their example.

Wonderful ideas. Re: drivers responibilities. In the 70’s when the federal gov. mandated 55 mph speed limits the reduction in the amount of gasoline consumers used was enough to greatly reduce our oil imports. The only glitch was the negative reaction, mostly from the western states because of long distances between populated areas.
An alternative solution: Lower existing speed limits by 10 miles per hour and enforce them. I sometimes drive in SC where the Interstate 26 speed limit is 70. Driving at 70 you will be passed by over 90% of the other drivers on the road. Any speed limit is worthless if those in autority don’t demand strict enforcement by the highway patrol.
It is equally important to examine the production of alternative fuels. The production of ethonal may use more oil and produce more pollution than that same oil consumed in vehicles. We need to know facts before commiting to wonderful sounding solutions which in the long run may be anything but wonderful.

Miss Margonelli is a credit to expertise and investigative journalism, as well as to the NYT who publish her work.
Her articles represent the power behind “knowledgeable public”, be they foundation or other pressure groups.
These are the best chance we have in a democratic system in which vested interests are taking over… making political parties unreliable.

The key to Ms Margonelle’s new energy policy has to be an energy tax. We have to increase the cost of crude oil, gradually but inexorably. Alternative energy producers must know that their investments in new technologies won’t be undercut by cheap oil and potential alternative energy consumers must know that their purchases of alternative-fueled vehicles or appliances make economic sense. If we don’t institute an energy tax, conservation will always be hostage to a drop in oil prices, e.g. synfuels in the 1980’s. The tax revenue can be used to promote investment in alternative energy technology.

I know that coal is a fossil fuel and has been implicated in CO2 emissions increases, but, power companies and others have been using inovative technologies to substantially decrease these emissions and and, also, convert coal to liquid form that can substitute for jet fuel, e.g. The U.S. has coal reserves that are equivalent to the oil reserves of the middle East and are available, now.

IF ONLY WE WOULD HEAR THIS FROM ONE OF OUR POLITICIANS. OUR LARGE CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY IS DOLLARS IN THE BANK FOR MANY LARGE, POWERFUL CORPORATONS. UNTIL, AND ONLY UNTIL, LOBBIST WITH MONEY AND POLITICAL INFLUENCE ARE STOPPED GIVING TO AND GETTING FROM ELECTED AGENTS OF THE PEOPLE AND THIER STAFF MEMBERS, THEN, AND ONLY THEN, WILL REAL ENGRY EFFICIENT PRACTICES BE MADE LAW. DOLLARS AND FAVORS PUT IN THE POT, TOKEN CHANGES AND TAX BREAKS GIVEN IN EXCHANGE; SAME OLD WASHINGTON POLITICS. THIS ISSUE IS LIKE MOST OTHERS IN WASHINGTON, FOLLOW THE MONEY$$$$ TO HELP CORRECT THE PROBLEM. ED

The efficent use of fuels indeed has beneficial effects for the economy, derived from more rational consumption habits, and lowering the current addiction to oil.
Nonetheless, the demand side of the equation has to be balanced with increased reliability of supply and sourcing of energy, even as we evolve to new, cleaner, sources.
In this regard, the production of synthetic gas (for power generation) and gas liquefaction (for gasoline and other fuel production) from coal are existing technological options. America has the largest reserves of coal in the world and they are underutilized.
There are, of course, environmental problems associated with coal extraction. But these have to be addressed in a concerted action designed to minimize damage to the land, and to improve the security standards of mine workers. Americans are, I am sure, quite capable of producing feasible and efficient, market-based, solutions to these problems.
In theory, the use of coal for transportation and power generation would go a long way to decrease, nay say eliminate, the current energy straightjacket.
In the end, it is all a matter of contrasting visions: dependence on foreign oil (mostly in the hands of unreliable and potentially unfriendly countries) or self-reliance based on a home-based resource. None of this, finally, contradicts the need to provide market incentives to find the ways to evolve to cleaner forms of energy generation for the country’s needs and its national security requirements.

In the section “energy conservation” there is a persistent typo; the savings the author alludes to are in millions of gallons a year not billions.

The author wants the president to say, “Starting tomorrow, we’re going to cut back on the oil we use . . .” That would happen literally overnight along with all the other admirable suggestions the author puts forward if we just tax fossil fuels. If oil were taxed at $40 to $60/barrel people would drive 55, properly inflate their tires, and just drive a whole lot less just like we did in the 70’s.

If carbon were taxed consumers would rush to conserve and utilities would rush to find clean and renewable alternatives. Having created the largest market in the world for energy conservation and renewable energy we wouldn’t have to borrow more money from China to subsidize research and development

If all the tax were rebated back to the consumers (who pay both their own and business’s energy bill) at a flat rate no matter how much energy they used it would by design have a net cost to the taxpayer of zero. Since energy consumption correlates with wealth it would be moderately progressive.

In short energy taxes would fulfill all the laudable goals of the author while fulfilling the principle of Ockham’s razor which states that among tow competing solutions the simplest is the best.

Escuse me all, but why are Brazilian consumers able to choose between three alternative fuels at the pump, and their ordinary cars can uset any, and in the United States we are shackeled to oil?
There are alternative solutions other than corn ethanol. Even sweet potatoes grown in unsused soils of the southeast can be an excellent source. Brilliant people are finding solutions, but this oil obsessed administration is rigid.
Our oil companies and totally related national admistration have us strapped. Why are we so gullible??? We have been raped by this administration. They are ndividually making personal billions as we drag along in their wake. Duh!!
Please wake up,
Elizabeth Wiley, Pawleys Island, SC

Conservation and efficiency improvements are clearly excellent and the only short term strategies available. But addressing global warming requires not just cutting oil imports but reducing coal burning from electric power plants. Renewables can help, but will be 15-20 years before cellulosic ethanol can make a major contribution. You should include safe, clean nuclear power in the energy portfolio. Personally I’m advocating pebble bed reactor technology, at pebblebedreactor.blogspot.com.

I’ve been waiting for a truely proactive energy policy since Jimmy Carter left office. I live in Southern Utah and am committed to putting solar panels on my house, but refuse to do it until I receive some support from Federal & State government. In building a new garage I purposely wired it for electrical outlets in anticipation of having an electrically power car in the (hopefully) near future. My house is built with a passive solar orientation, extra insulation, insulating window shades and a digital thermostat. When the weather and time permit I bicycle to do errands in town. There is so much we can do to decrease our profligate energy use. Yet, no matter how committed I am, the country needs leadership that is actually committed to making a change. I have seen nothing of this from the current administration. Let’s hope the scales have fallen from their eyes.

This excellent article would be even more powerful if the prescribed new energy policy sought to exploit more aggressively the price elasticity of demand for fossil fuel as well as the related cross-elasticities of substitutes. If the price at the pump were to be increased, incrementally over the next ten years, to three-times the present level (in current dollars) demand and consumption would decrease dramatically. This would likely induce the development of more efficient vehicles and other energy-consuming products. Also, alternative sources of energy would become potentially more competitive and attract more investment in their exploration and development. Moreover, the substantially lower energy conservation would make the U.S. more energy-secure as well as less dependent on troublesome foreign sources of fossil fuel, such as those in the Middle East. In turn, this would drastically reduce resort to ill-fated and expensive military interventions.

There seems to be a growing divide between average the american society and the minority of elected politicians that control the key issues of the country and are instrumental on how the rest of the world perceives America.

Obviously a solution to bridge the divide, could be the implementation of referendums at local-regional levels, to expose the conflict and trigger a mandatory request to the elected politicians to meet the demands of the people. That’s the essence of the democracy that America preaches to the world , and does not practice itself, in particular regarding the fundamental issues.

I believe the important concepts raised by Lisa Margonelli, are worth of a referendum. So the people will be heard.

I hope that James Webb in his response to the President’s State of the Union speech borrows a lot from this article. It’s a powerful indictment of the administration. Judge us by our actions not our words they used to be found of saying.

Thanks for making efficiency prominent. Most discussions put it far down the list, after wind, ethanol, and other new sources. The message then becomes, “no need to change anything you do or buy, we’ll find new clean sources soon.” Meanwhile, per capita energy use is going up.

One of the primary arguments for driving large vehicles (the larger the better) is that they protect their occupants better in a crash than smaller vehicles do. And they probably do to some extent. In any case it is an affective tool for selling big vehicles.

Mandating much better crash protection could level the playing field. A main objection to buying small fuel efficient cars would go away.

The down side is that Detroit would drag its feet, complain about impracticality, and lobby,lobby, lobby. Meanwhile the Japanese, Koreans, and Germans will simply build cars that meet the mandate, get 40 mpg, and not cost much than before. The domestic auto industry will end up robust but will mainly consist of domestic plants belonging to foreign manufactures.

If a NASCAR driver can walk away from his 2000 pound car after a 120 mph crash, surely better crash protection for passenger vehicles is less than rocket science.

they have their act together making cars that burn pure alcohol or gas. Ethanol appears to be fools gold, costing almost as much gasoline to make and using precious corn [see the rising price of tortilias in Mexico] so it’s a wash energy savings wise. Alcohol on the other hand can be made from a wide variety of sources. Other wise: RIGHT ON!

One way to decrease the amount of gasoline consumed now would be by construction of electric mass transportation systems on major roadways with the electricity coming from wind (mainly), solar, and other alternative fuels. Eliminating those thousands of autos with their usual solo drivers would do that very quickly.
If you wanted to eliminate our oil addiction more rapidly by spending the money to do so, there is technology available that could make Moon travel and construction there feasible. On our satellite with its unrestricted exposure to the sun, stations could be set up and maintained with multiple solar panel banks. Massive amounts of produced electrical energy could be converted to microwave energy on the Moon and then easily beamed to Earth. There it would be converted back to electrical energy and fed immediately into the Earth’s electrical grids, producing tremendous amounts of available electrical power. The oil industry could then be used for only non-global-warming products like plastics and fertilizer; but nothing that burns! This approach would also keep the oil industry going for many more years in a positive fashion rather than its current Earth- destructive mode.

All excellent suggestions. To add one more…
One way countries in Asia & Europe increase energy efficiency is having effective public transport systems. It is an embarrassment that a city the size of Houston has a single tram line. Government should encourage proper investment in mass transit systems to give people a vaible alternative to all jumping in their SUV every morning.